Add AI goals for destroying turrets of a certain type by Kestrellius · Pull Request #7700 · scp-fs2open/fs2open.github.com

Kestrellius · 2026-08-09T14:38:36Z

Introduces two new AI goals, AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE and AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP, which cause the AI to target turrets carrying a specific class of weapon, either on a targeted ship or on any enemy ship in the mission. From a player-experience perspective, this should help to resolve a certain type of irritating situation that occurs when destroying multiple heavy weapons on an enemy warship is necessary, but wingmen can't effectively help without impractical amounts of micromanagement.

At present, these orders are accessible only through SEXPs and scripting, but future plans involve integrating them into the player commands system.

Goober5000

Partial review for now; still looking through this

Goober5000 · 2026-08-17T04:42:41Z


 	// Goober5000 - before doing anything else, check if this is a disarm goal for an arrived ship...
-	if ((status == SHIP_STATUS_ARRIVED) && (aigp->ai_mode == AI_GOAL_DISARM_SHIP || aigp->ai_mode == AI_GOAL_DISARM_SHIP_TACTICAL))
+	if ((status == SHIP_STATUS_ARRIVED) && (aigp->ai_mode == AI_GOAL_DISARM_SHIP || aigp->ai_mode == AI_GOAL_DISARM_SHIP_TACTICAL || aigp->ai_mode == AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP))


I don't think AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP should be lumped in with standard disarm here. I think it needs its own separate handling, just like the other places.

Hmm. What other behavior are you envisioning? I suppose I could check whether any turret aboard the ship has the specified weapon.

That block checked whether the ship had any turrets. A ship with dozens of turrets but none of the desired type would pass the check.

However, on further investigation, this is actually a dead code path for your case. The no-turrets-with-desired-weapon is already checked and returns SATISFIED. So you can just delete the block that you added on line 2115. In fact, you can delete my block too, since it's also dead code: commit 6e9b31c made the goal check the actual status of the subsystem rather than the mission log.

Kestrellius · 2026-08-17T21:50:25Z

Good catches, thank you!

Goober5000

Several more review comments. Also, dialog support for initial goals in FRED and QtFRED needs work. You'll need to test adding and modifying both goals in both editors. Alternatively, you could just remove these goals from the initial goals list and designate them as SEXP-only goals

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:06:30Z

+
+	case OP_AI_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE:
+		aigp->ai_mode = AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE;
+		aigp->int_data = weapon_info_lookup(ai_get_goal_target_name( CTEXT(CDR(node)), &dummy ));
+		break;
+
+	case OP_AI_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP:
+		aigp->ai_mode = AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP;
+		aigp->int_data = weapon_info_lookup(ai_get_goal_target_name( CTEXT(CDR(node)), &dummy ));
+		aigp->target_name = ai_get_goal_target_name( CTEXT(CDDR(node)), &aigp->target_name_index );
+		break;


These cases need to assign the goal's priority

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:12:13Z

+				case AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE:
+					str = "ai-destroy-turret-type";
+					break;
+


This doesn't fit the pattern of goal/target/priority, so it will need to be specially handled in the above else if series

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:12:20Z

+				case AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP:
+					str = "ai-destroy-turret-type-on-ship";
+					break;
+


Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:23:44Z

+	if (aigp->ai_mode == AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE) {
+		for (auto so : list_range(&Ship_obj_list)) {
+			auto type_objp = &Objects[so->objnum];
+			if (type_objp->type != OBJ_SHIP || type_objp->flags[Object::Object_Flags::Should_be_dead] || !Weapon_info.in_bounds(aigp->int_data))


The Weapon_info.in_bounds() check should be extracted and placed above the loop, and it should return NOT_ACHIEVABLE for an invalid weapon. See the waypoints check a few lines up for an example.

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:27:53Z

+		Assertion(current_goal->int_data >= 0, "The target of AI_GOAL_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP must refer to a valid weapon class!");
+		other_obj = current_goal_target_ship->objp();
+		ai_attack_object( objp, other_obj);
+		ai_set_attack_subsystem( objp, SUBSYSTEM_TURRET, current_goal->int_data );


sorry, this should be -SUBSYSTEM_TURRET (note the minus sign in front)

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:37:16Z

+		}
+	}
+
+	ssp = GET_NEXT( ssp );


what is this?

Copy-paste error, I think.

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:37:50Z

+	return false;
+}
+
+float ship_get_turret_type_aggregate_hits(ship *shipp, int wi_index)


this could be const ship *shipp

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:42:45Z

+	ssp = GET_FIRST(&shipp->subsys_list);
+	while ( ssp != END_OF_LIST( &shipp->subsys_list ) ) {
+		ship_weapon *swp = &ssp->weapons;
+		bool weapon_found = false;
+		for ( auto& i : swp->primary_bank_weapons ) {
+			if (weapon_found) {
+				break;
+			}
+			if (i == wi_index) {
+				weapon_found = true;
+				strength += ssp->current_hits;
+			}
+		}
+		for ( auto& i : swp->secondary_bank_weapons ) {
+			if (weapon_found) {
+				break;
+			}
+			if (i == wi_index) {
+				weapon_found = true;
+				strength += ssp->current_hits;
+			}
+		}
+
+		ssp = GET_NEXT( ssp );
+	}


This whole thing can be reduced to something like:

for (auto ssp: list_range(&shipp->subsys_list)) { if (ssp->system_info->type == SUBSYSTEM_TURRET && turret_has_weapon(ssp, wi_index)) strength += ssp->current_hits; }

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:43:42Z

+	{ OP_AI_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE, "Ai-destroy-turret-type (Ship/wing goal)\r\n"
+		"\tThis AI goal causes a ship/wing to destroy all enemy turrets in the mission that "
+		"are carrying a specified weapon."
+		"Takes 2 arguments...\r\n"


Should be 2 or 3 arguments. Also the previous line needs \r\n\r\n

Goober5000 · 2026-09-04T21:46:43Z

+	{ OP_AI_DESTROY_TURRET_TYPE_ON_SHIP, "Ai-destroy-turret-type-on-ship (Ship/wing goal)\r\n"
+		"\tThis AI goal causes a ship/wing to destroy all turrets on a specified ship that "
+		"are carrying a specified weapon."
+		"Takes 2 arguments...\r\n"


Should be 3 or 4 arguments. Also the previous line needs \r\n\r\n

Kestrellius · 2026-09-11T10:06:35Z

Also, dialog support for initial goals in FRED and QtFRED needs work. You'll need to test adding and modifying both goals in both editors. Alternatively, you could just remove these goals from the initial goals list and designate them as SEXP-only goals

Yeah, they'll have to be left out for now. In the long term they ought to have initial-goal support, but I am not up to trying to figure out UI stuff right at the moment.

Kestrellius added 3 commits August 8, 2026 10:28

add destroy turret type orders

7837fe3

bugfixing

24c8449

bugfixing

d4c91b1

wookieejedi added enhancement A new feature or upgrade of an existing feature to add additional functionality. ai A feature or issue related to the AI algorithms labels Aug 12, 2026

Goober5000 requested changes Aug 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Kestrellius and others added 2 commits August 17, 2026 14:53

address feedback

8cb163b

Merge branch 'master' into turret-orders

2598f82

wookieejedi added this to the Release 26.2 milestone Aug 29, 2026

Goober5000 requested changes Sep 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Kestrellius added 4 commits September 11, 2026 03:09

delete dead code

e43ac64

feedback

ee2673b

feedback

aa94af1

remove orders from initial orders list

ceedec4

BMagnu requested a review from Goober5000 September 12, 2026 01:09

Kestrellius and others added 3 commits September 11, 2026 20:44

Merge branch 'master' into turret-orders

194cfd5

any-of

3aca08a

Merge branch 'master' into turret-orders

1068a75

BMagnu modified the milestones: Release 26.2, Release 27.0 Sep 19, 2026

Conversation

Kestrellius commented Aug 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Goober5000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kestrellius commented Aug 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Goober5000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Kestrellius commented Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants